Hey, Atheists...

BCP1928 · Apr 4, 2025

stevevw said:
Probably because I am not beating around he bush lol. Just saying it like it is.

That's not how it is. Determinism is not imply metaphysical materialism. In fact many Christians require it as central to their theology.

BCP1928 · Apr 4, 2025

stevevw said:
Ok so I am not sure what your point is now. You said that I should present my evidence to Hans. I said why should I when he has already dismissed it before it can't be measured. Now I am not sure what your point is.

I am saying there is a different criteria for empiricalists to theists when it comes to morality and reality for that matter for the evidence.

I don't care whether you present any evidence to Hans or not. I was just trying to help you out a little--you seemed to be in a muddle about what empirical evidence is.

stevevw said:
Really, lol when it is so easy to prove. Are you really that naive. These are not hypothetical arguements but real ones that have happened whenever there is an arguement between material atheism and belief in God, moral lawgiver or creator, or transcedent aspects of reality like consciousness beyond brain and experiences.

When an atheist refers to the empirical evidence they are insisting on a certain kind of evidence agreed. A certain way to know and measure whats real or not.

So when they argue with a theist or about transcedent realities like experience and insist on empirical evidence they are restricting the possible evidence for this. Agreed so far.

Not really. An atheist is not likely to take your personal experience of the transcendent as objectively real unless they can have that experience themselves.

stevevw said:
Actually its the exact opposite of shallow and inadequate because it supports an all inclusive epistemics where all ways of knowing reality have equal worth and none are exclusive or dominant over others. Not the atheist or material scientists worldview or not the radical evangelist or creationist view.

But a fair position where all ways of knowing have equal say. This is beginning to be recognised in recent years with Indigenous knowledge. For too long western scientific materialism dominated and imposed on Indigenous peoples and denied them their culture. Now we are seeing the value of their experiential and belief knowledge of nature.

So yes allow different voices, testimonies, experiences and the stories people and cultures tell. Listen carefully and don't dismiss out of hand as superstition and make believe. There is truth and knowlegde that reveals a deeper reality which can enlighten us about human behaviour and the world beyond the material ontology and measurements.

Which reminds me that you are essentially making a cultural argument yourself.

stevevw · Apr 4, 2025

BCP1928 said:
That's not how it is. Determinism is not imply metaphysical materialism. In fact many Christians require it as central to their theology.

Determinism is exactly that way for those who use it in the context of material naturalism which is designed to refute God and explain things without God. We are talking about arguements for truth of reality when it comes to God and belief in transcedent or spiritual aspects of belief.

I was having an arguement with someone in this thread who said there is no such thing as the spiritual aspect. That its actually psychological or feelings. Which is basically deterministic and material in that its reduced back to the physical processes that can be measured and predicted through methodological naturalism.

Its how this is used in arguments to refute the specific beliefs in God and spirituality.

I mean how does a Christian require determinism as part of their theology. This must itself be some strange idea that you say I am creating about determinism lol. How does belief in God and transcedent realities relate to determinism.

BCP1928 · Apr 4, 2025

stevevw said:
Determinism is exactly that way for those who use it in the context of material naturalism which is designed to refute God and explain things without God. We are talking about arguements for truth of reality when it comes to God and belief in transcedent or spiritual aspects of belief.

God doesn't need to be refuted if you don't believe He exists. "Material naturalism" is not designed to refute God. Indeed, it cannot.

stevevw said:
I was having an arguement with someone in this thread who said there is no such thing as the spiritual aspect. That its actually psychological or feelings. Which is basically deterministic and material in that its reduced back to the physical processes that can be measured and predicted through methodological naturalism.

Its how this is used in arguments to refute the specific beliefs in God and spirituality.

I mean how does a Christian require determinism as part of their theology. This must itself be some strange idea that you say I am creating about determinism lol. How does belief in God and transcedent realities relate to determinism.

When God acts causally in the material world they believe that causality must be deterministic.

stevevw · Apr 4, 2025

BCP1928 said:
I don't care whether you present any evidence to Hans or not. I was just trying to help you out a little--you seemed to be in a muddle about what empirical evidence is.

Actually thats not the point. I know exactly what empirical evidence is. My point is why would I do that and play the rules according to scientific naturalism. In fact there is no empirical evidence for God and belief in spirituality or transcedent realities.

Actually I just remember I have already presented some. That was on how prayer influences reality. But the personal testimonoes were rejected and the usual reply is that people are imagining things or that some logical and naturalistic cause occurred that we cannot understand or explain. Any unexplained events are assumed to have a naturalistic explaination.

So like I said whats the use of presenting evidences that doesn't meet the criteria of methological naturalism. I between a rock and a hard place before we even start lol because the criteria has already been set to naturalistic evidence.

BCP1928 said:
Not really. An atheist is not likely to take your personal experience of the transcendent as objectively real unless they can have that experience themselves.

Hense an atheist who does not have the experience of belief in God is lacking a big chunk of evidence he is dismissing out of hand. If he did have that experience he would actually be saying that not only is belief in God real and reveals a greater depth to whats really going on but that it also opens the door for other stuff like miracles, prayer, consciousness beyond brain, spirituality ect. A whole new world lol.

But nuh, its got to be their way or the highway. I agree its understandable., But don't double down on theists or people who believe in transcedent realities are ultimately wrong when the arguements comes down to "where is the evidence". If you can't produce the evidence then its unreal. Why because they use it to defeat the theist.

BCP1928 said:
Which reminds me that you are essentially making a cultural argument yourself.

Actually no. I am merely being philosophical and pointing out the bigger picture of how there are more than way way to aquire knowledge about reality and no way should be pushed that excludes other ways of knowing and possible ontologies. Thats been my point all along.

BCP1928 · Apr 4, 2025

stevevw said:
Actually thats not the point. I know exactly what empirical evidence is. My point is why would I do that and play the rules according to scientific naturalism. In fact there is no empirical evidence for God and belief in spirituality or transcedent realities.

Actually I just remember I have already presented some. That was on how prayer influences reality. But the personal testimonoes were rejected and the usual reply is that people are imagining things or that some logical and naturalistic cause occurred that we cannot understand or explain. Any unexplained events are assumed to have a naturalistic explaination.

Strictly speaking, what you are being told is that the possibility of a naturalistic explanation has not been eliminated. See the difference?

stevevw said:
So like I said whats the use of presenting evidences that doesn't meet the criteria of methological naturalism. I between a rock and a hard place before we even start lol because the criteria has already been set to naturalistic evidence.

Hense an atheist who does not have the experience of belief in God is lacking a big chunk of evidence he is dismissing out of hand. If he did have that experience he would actually be saying that not only is belief in God real and reveals a greater depth to whats really going on but that it also opens the door for other stuff like miracles, prayer, consciousness beyond brain, spirituality ect. A whole new world lol.

But nuh, its got to be their way or the highway. I agree its understandable., But don't double down on theists or people who believe in transcedent realities are ultimately wrong when the arguements comes down to "where is the evidence". If you can't produce the evidence then its unreal. Why because they use it to defeat the theist.

Why do you think it is necessary for them to defeat the theists? The atheists I know about mostly just ignore theists, provided they don't give trouble.

stevevw said:
Actually no. I am merely being philosophical and pointing out the bigger picture of how there are more than way way to aquire knowledge about reality and no way should be pushed that excludes other ways of knowing and possible ontologies. Thats been my point all along.

And if one of these ways of knowing turns up something worth knowing which can be verified then there will be empirical evidence for it. I sometimes have the impression that you have confused "empirical" with "physical" or "material."

stevevw · Apr 4, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Strictly speaking, what you are being told is that the possibility of a naturalistic explanation has not been eliminated. See the difference?

No the naturalisc explanation is used to defeat the supernatural one. Whent its said 'where is the evidence' otherwise its all just empty assertions' its used to hammer the theists and supernatural explanations.

BCP1928 said:
Why do you think it is necessary for them to defeat the theists? The atheists I know about mostly just ignore theists, provided they don't give trouble.

So when you debate them about God or creation do they agree thats a possibility.

BCP1928 said:
And if one of these ways of knowing turns up something worth knowing which can be verified then there will be empirical evidence for it.

Well of course. If the criteria is empirical evidence then that is what will looked for an found.

BCP1928 said:
I sometimes have the impression that you have confused "empirical" with "physical" or "material."

Primarily empirical evidence aligns with naturalistic and material explanations which are observable. You can't see or measure something that is transcedent to the physical or quantified measures.

Even consciousness which itself cannot be put in a test tube and measures quantitatiuvely is said to be an epiphenomena caused by the physical. Particle fields and forces in physics are abstract measures we cannot see but only their influence are assumed to be a physical aspect of reality.

Behaviour is seen as being ultimately caused by deterministic physical processes like genetics, nuerons, hormones, and even culture which is traced back to evolution which primarily reduces everything back to genetics and natural selection. Even belief in God itself is the result of evolution such as cooperation for survival. Survival is ultimately a physical explanation in preserving genes which are physical.

What can be empirical and not physical or material as in falling within the causal closure of the physical.

Akita Suggagaki · Apr 6, 2025

stevevw said:
Its begging the question. Your already assuming as a priori that empirical evidence is the only evidence. Whatever I say about God, spirituality or any transcedent aspects to reality you will demand the empirical evidence. Thus demanding only one aspect of the evidence. In fact demanding one that is completely incapable of measuring God and belief.

What your not understanding when you say people are "non-empirical evidence" doesn't really count for a position based on empirical evidence is that the position is already a belief position because its assuming that only empirical evidence counts prior to the measure. Thats why empirical evidence is being used and insssisted on as the evidence.

But what other kind of evidence can we qualify as valued? We were talking about personal experience for a while. But even that turns out to be emperical because we would be looking for positive changes in a believer's life that can been observed and measured.

Kylie · Apr 14, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
But even that turns out to be emperical because we would be looking for positive changes in a believer's life that can been observed and measured.

And how do you empirically measure that?

Ophiolite · Apr 30, 2025

@Akita Suggagaki : Here are three not so random, but otherwise dicsonnected, thoughts on your OP question.

1. The best evidence based explanation for our (human) existence lies in the context of phsyics, cosmology and evolutionary biology. Our morality derives from the latter and displays the wide range of detailed expression one would expect from such an origin, regardless of what source is claimed for that morality.

2. There appears to me to be a tendency upon the part of some theists and some atheists to overemphasise the importance of competition over cooperation in what morality ought (or does) emerge from evolutionary drives. This often, in my opinion, derails the discussion.

3. And remarkably, for the first time in more than a decade, I find myself agreeing with @d taylor:

d taylor said:
Well as many atheist come from a religious background. The answers they give will still be tainted from their past Biblical background.

Although I wouldn't say the influence the words said to have been spoken by Jesus tainted me. Quite the reverse, rather they reinforced evolutionary derived, internal moral compass.

Akita Suggagaki · Apr 30, 2025

Ophiolite said:
@Akita Suggagaki : Here are three not so random, but otherwise dicsonnected, thoughts on your OP question.

1. The best evidence based explanation for our (human) existence lies in the context of phsyics, cosmology and evolutionary biology. Our morality derives from the latter and displays the wide range of detailed expression one would expect from such an origin, regardless of what source is claimed for that morality.

2. There appears to me to be a tendency upon the part of some theists and some atheists to overemphasise the importance of competition over cooperation in what morality ought (or does) emerge from evolutionary drives. This often, in my opinion, derails the discussion.

3. And remarkably, for the first time in more than a decade, I find myself agreeing with @d taylor:

Although I wouldn't say the influence the words said to have been spoken by Jesus tainted me. Quite the reverse, rather they reinforced evolutionary derived, internal moral compass.

That internal moral compass, do you think it is the result of inherited survival strategies? Do empathy and solidarity have personal survival value?

essentialsaltes · Apr 30, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
That internal moral compass, do you think it is the result of inherited survival strategies? Do empathy and solidarity have personal survival value?

The mathematician J.B.S. Haldane in the 1930's famously joked that he would willingly die for two brothers or eight cousins.

Kin selection

Kin selection can lead to the evolution of altruistic behaviour.

Ophiolite · Apr 30, 2025

Akita Suggagaki said:
That internal moral compass, do you think it is the result of inherited survival strategies? Do empathy and solidarity have personal survival value?

As to the moral compass, very definitely, and no one has yet shown me a convincing alternative for its source.

Equally valid for empathy and solidarity (which I take you to mean the act of supporting others). Obviously these may also support survival of distant relatives, including those not only of different cultures and beliefs, but also of other species. I suspect that the blurring of targets for our empathetic, supporting actions (e.g. raising children not our own, contributing to efforts to save endagered species) may itself be an evolutionary selected consequence. But I'll leave it there before I go full Gaian!

d taylor · Apr 30, 2025

-

Many atheist are atheist because they do not like the way God works or does life. So they pronounce God as nonexistent. If God would do the way they think things should be done, then they would again believe in God.

d taylor · Apr 30, 2025

Ophiolite said:
@Akita Suggagaki : Here are three not so random, but otherwise dicsonnected, thoughts on your OP question.

1. The best evidence based explanation for our (human) existence lies in the context of phsyics, cosmology and evolutionary biology. Our morality derives from the latter and displays the wide range of detailed expression one would expect from such an origin, regardless of what source is claimed for that morality.

2. There appears to me to be a tendency upon the part of some theists and some atheists to overemphasise the importance of competition over cooperation in what morality ought (or does) emerge from evolutionary drives. This often, in my opinion, derails the discussion.

3. And remarkably, for the first time in more than a decade, I find myself agreeing with @d taylor:

Although I wouldn't say the influence the words said to have been spoken by Jesus tainted me. Quite the reverse, rather they reinforced evolutionary derived, internal moral compass.

-

What about The Tanakh (Old Testament) The Bible does include that part..

Tinker Grey · Apr 30, 2025

d taylor said:
-

Many atheist are atheist because they do not like the way God works or does life. So they pronounce God as nonexistent. If God would do the way they think things should be done, then they would again believe in God.

False

BCP1928 · Apr 30, 2025

d taylor said:
-

Many atheist are atheist because they do not like the way God works or does life. So they pronounce God as nonexistent. If God would do the way they think things should be done, then they would again believe in God.

Do you actually believe that nonsense yourself?

Hans Blaster · Apr 30, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Do you actually believe that nonsense yourself?

I've seen no evidence they believe otherwise. (Just like I've seen no evidence of their god.)

Ophiolite · Apr 30, 2025

d taylor said:
-

What about The Tanakh (Old Testament) The Bible does include that part..

What about it? It does not provide an evidence based explanation for any part of the universe. There are several parts of it I find interesting, even beautiful. I found the reading from Genesis by the Apollo 8 astronauts as they rounded the moon to be touching and serene. On the other hand, I recently completed reading all of the OT, focusing on those parts no one had guided me towards in my youth. I was appallled by the toxicity of large portions of that. The mental contortions I would have to engage in to extract a positive message from those far exceed my skills in that direction.

d taylor · Apr 30, 2025

Ophiolite said:
What about it? It does not provide an evidence based explanation for any part of the universe. There are several parts of it I find interesting, even beautiful. I found the reading from Genesis by the Apollo 8 astronauts as they rounded the moon to be touching and serene. On the other hand, I recently completed reading all of the OT, focusing on those parts no one had guided me towards in my youth. I was appallled by the toxicity of large portions of that. The mental contortions I would have to engage in to extract a positive message from those far exceed my skills in that direction.

-

I was just asking about The Old Testament as it seems like you just referenced the words of Jesus

Hey, Atheists...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Kin selection​

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Hood was a loser.

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Kin selection